Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
S.M. Kannappa Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. ... vs Commissioner Of Central Excise And ... on 10 March, 2014
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE Final Order No. 20334 / 2014 Application(s) Involved: E/Stay/26120/2013 in E/25828/2013-DB Appeal(s) Involved: E/25828/2013-DB [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 87/2013 dated 08/03/2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore] S.M. Kannappa Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. (Unit-II) 7th Milestone Peenya, Bangalore - 560 058 Karnataka Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Central Excise And Customs - Bangalore-II PB 5400 CR Building, Queens Road, Bangalore - 560 001, Karnataka Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Mr. N. Anand, Advocate No.152, Race Course Road, Bangalore - 560 001 For the Appellant Mr. Ganesh Haavanur, AR For the Respondent CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V. MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI S.K. MOHANTY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Date of Hearing: 10/03/2014 Date of Decision: 10/03/2014 Order Per: B.S.V. MURTHY There are two issues in the appeal are before us. The first issue is whether the appellant can be compelled to opt for a particular exemption scheme if two schemes are available. The second issue is whether the appellant has to pay duty on the buses built by the chassis supplied by M/s. Ashok Leyland on which appellant has taken CENVAT credit and built the body and sent it back to M/s. Ashok Leyland after the payment of duty under Rule 10A of Central Excise Valuation Rules. The learned counsel submits that both the issues had come up before this Tribunal in the case of very same appellant on 29.12.2011 and this Tribunal vide Stay Order No. 01/2012 dated 29.12.2011 had taken a prima facie view that on the first issue appellant has a case and on the second issue appellant does not have a prima facie case and had directed the appellant to deposit the entire amount.
2. This is in respect of the appeal which has been dismissed for non-compliance with the requirement of Stay Order which directed the appellant to deposit Rs. 33 lakhs. The learned counsel submitted that the appellant has deposited Rs. 3 lakhs and the amount involved is about Rs. 4 lakhs. Therefore the amount deposited by the appellant is substantially more than what appellant was required to deposit when the matter had come up before the Tribunal. Under these circumstances, we consider that the appeal itself may be decided this stage itself since in any case the matter has to be remanded for decision on merits. The only issue to be decided by us is whether the amount deposited is sufficient for hearing the appeal by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) or the appellant should be directed to deposit the amount as ordered by the Commissioner.
3. In view of the fact that in the case of very same appellant for a different period this Tribunal had taken the view that if the appellant deposits the entire amount on the second issue that would be sufficient and appellant has already deposited more than the amount required to be deposited if the Tribunal order is followed we consider that the amount deposited is sufficient and Commissioner is requested to pass an order afresh on merit treating the amount deposited by the appellant as sufficient. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned Commissioner (Appeals) with a direction to decide the matter without insisting on any further pre-deposit of the amount on merit after giving reasonable opportunity to the appellants to present their case.
(Order dictated and pronounced in open court) (S.K. MOHANTY) JUDICIAL MEMBER (B.S.V. MURTHY) TECHNICAL MEMBER iss